A nice theory, but if they appear in the webrequest table (presumably
they would, and we're not creating an entirely new set of varnishes
for the transmission of dummy images?) they have to be factored in.
Again, however, the new definition automatically filters them by
checking the webrequest source and MIME type, so this is not a
problem, as I originally stated.
On 5 February 2015 at 08:10, Erik Zachte <ezachte(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Oliver, this is not about pageviews, but about
media file views.
These will be collected and dumped separately, as per
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Media_file_request_coun…
.
Erik
From: analytics-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:analytics-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nuria Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 22:28
To: A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has
an
interest in Wikipedia and analytics.
Subject: Re: [Analytics] Virtual file view hack for Media Viewer views
We would add a rule to Vagrant to make sure it
does not try to look up
such
requests in Swift but returns a 404 immediately.
I bet ops would like it a lot better if this is a 204 and it kind of
makes
sense as it is the code used for beacons and such. Otherwise they might
get
alarms on 404s increasing.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Not really; the new pageviews definition wouldn't include those files
anyway. It seems silly, thought, be deliberately generating a large
amount of automated noise and client requests for this :/.
On 4 February 2015 at 15:00, Gergo Tisza <gtisza(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Erik Zachte is working on file view stats and is looking for a way to
track
Media Viewer image views (for which there is no 1:1 relation between
server
hits and actual image views); after some back and forth in
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T86914 I proposed the following hack:
whenever the javascript code in MediaViewer determines that an image
view
happened (e.g. an image has been displayed for a certain amount of
time),
it
makes a request to a certain fake image, say
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Virtual-imageview-<real
image name>/<size>px-thumbnail.<ext> . These hits can than be easily
filtered from the varnish request logs and added to the normal
requests.
We
would add a rule to Vagrant to make sure it does not try to look up
such
requests in Swift but returns a 404 immediately.
This would be a temporary workaround until there is a proper way to log
virtual image views, such as EventLogging with a non-SQL backend.
Do you see any fundamental problem with this?
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org